Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 2:15 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What Does Being An Atheist Actually Entail? (Theism in mind)
#1
What Does Being An Atheist Actually Entail? (Theism in mind)
“Unless one can genuinely believe that all of these secular scientific assertions make sense, it can’t be wise to invest their belief in it….”

In other words, unless one personally dives in to the study and proof of evolution and astrophysics, that person is essentially putting faith in another person’s beliefs and conclusions to be sound.  Similarly, that same person will refuse to believe in theistic teachings.  Why put faith in the biased assertions of scientists over the biased assertions of theism.  (I say theism because the teachings/representation of a religion is not always what that religion was originally founded upon).  Why so easily accept one, yet not genuinely search the answers for the other?  It is certainly not because abstract science, by the means of proving creation, is easier to understand. The short answer is because the alternative belief (theism) would completely change the dynamic of your life and future-it is easier not to investigate the topic further.  Being open is the first and hardest step–requiring submitting to unaccountability, pride, and change.

The same could question could be posed upon theists, however.  Why not search for the science creation proof?  The crucial difference between the two instances is that every theist can and does completely understand their belief – it’s called faith.  The problem for most atheists is that they can’t and don’t fully understand why they believe it.  Top-notch scientists in the field of astrophysics, cosmology, and evolution – as flawed as it is – have a merit to be an atheist because they fully understand what it means to be.  Most others, on the other hand, are putting complete faith in to human scientists to justify their beliefs.  There’s a distinct and vital difference between the founders of a belief, and the followers.  
Again, with all of that said, people who believe in a god know what it means to believe in it – faith.  Not faith in scientists, but faith in the belief of an omnipotent god that rests upon the fact we don’t know all of the answers.  
Better put, what will it be: blind faith in others humans’ finite intellect, or blind faith in an omnipotent god?  Theism gives the tools (e.g. literature and teachings) and capability (e.g. faith, intellect (or lack of), human morals ect.) for everyone to independently be a part of what it means to believe in it.
Science creation simply doesn’t do it for most.  Trusting scientists’ say-so is not what I wish to “worship”, if you will.


Sorry if I offended any of you.  I'm just trying to say my thoughts.  If you want to criticize any of it go ahead.  God Bless.
Reply
#2
RE: What Does Being An Atheist Actually Entail? (Theism in mind)
Quote: Better put, what will it be: blind faith in others humans’ finite intellect, or blind faith in an omnipotent god?

Now all you have to do is demonstrate that there is an omnipotent god.  Let me know when you can do that.

Meanwhile, I'll stick with the slow but steady advance of science.
Reply
#3
RE: What Does Being An Atheist Actually Entail? (Theism in mind)
(April 27, 2015 at 11:47 pm)gomlbrobro Wrote: In other words, unless one personally dives in to the study and proof of evolution and astrophysics, that person is essentially putting faith in another person’s beliefs and conclusions to be sound.

Am I putting faith in an auto mechanic when I take my car in to be repaired? Am I putting my faith in a surgeon when I have an operation?

I guess you could say so, but the crucial difference is that these are informed faith, backed up by the track record of the people involved, and the evidence of their efficacy. It's trust, certainly not the capital F Faith that religion requires, and the same is true of evolution and astrophysics, both of which come courtesy of scientists who always show their working and cite their sources when making claims. You're not the first theist to conflate reasonable trust based on evidence with faith in the completely unevidenced, but you're no more right than any of the others.

Quote:  Similarly, that same person will refuse to believe in theistic teachings.  Why put faith in the biased assertions of scientists over the biased assertions of theism.

Because the people who assert the presence of bias in science are never able to show evidence of this, though they're readily able to show evidence of how little they understand science. Meanwhile, the scientists just kinda put their observations and hypotheses out there for everyone to test, and have a easily researchable track record of retracting those same hypotheses when they're proven to be wrong.

That's probably why.

Quote:Why so easily accept one, yet not genuinely search the answers for the other?

Why are you assuming a lack of genuine searching from us? Do you know any of us? No? Then I guess this is just an assumption of convenience because it's easier to impugn our characters than it is to consider the possibility that we searched just as genuinely as you did and found nothing. If it can happen to us it could happen to you, right? Scary!

Take my wife, for example: lifelong christian until shortly before I met her. You can attempt to question her credentials but it would be foolish to: this is a woman who ended up in intensive care, on death's door, because she refused life saving medical treatment in favor of praying, her knowledge that the same god you believe in would save her preventing her from taking the proven treatment science was offering. Ultimately the god did nothing and let her waste away and almost die, but the scientific treatment had her bouncing back, and further scientific treatments since have allowed her to almost fully recover from her illness, at this point. She's an atheist now, but don't you dare accuse her of not genuinely searching, and the fact that she has falsifies your claim right there.

And her recovery, incidentally, is a perfect show of why it's acceptable to put your trust in science, and not in religion; one works, the other just promises that it does.

Quote:  It is certainly not because evolution and cosmetology, by the means of proving creation, is easier to understand.

Easy to understand does not equal true. This is something you must come to terms with, if you wish to think rationally.

Quote:The short answer is because the alternative belief (theism) would completely change the dynamic of your life and future-it is easier not to investigate the topic further.  Being open is the first and hardest step–requiring submitting to unaccountability, pride, and change.

Why do you think it is acceptable to presume things about people you've never met in order to impugn their character? Why do you think this is a productive way to begin a conversation about beliefs, by dictating ours to us like this? Wouldn't you think it would be horribly rude and arrogant of us to do the same to you?

'Cause where I'm from, we call that a strawman argument, kid.

Quote:The same could question could be posed upon theists, however.  Why not search for the science creation proof?  The crucial difference between the two instances is that every theist can and does completely understand their belief – it’s called faith.  The problem for most atheists is that they can’t and don’t fully understand why they believe it.  Top-notch scientists in the field of astrophysics, cosmetology, and evolution – as flawed as it is – have a merit to be an atheist because they fully understand what it means to be.  Most others, on the other hand, are putting complete faith in to human scientists to justify their beliefs.  There’s a distinct and vital difference between the founders of a belief, and the followers. 

The difference, of course, is that scientists have a track record of demonstrable results- the world you live in is influenced by the works of science in so many ways it'd be impossible to list them all- and they present all of their data as a matter of routine. The difference, good sir, is that it's actually possible to learn the details of evolution and cosmology, whereas all religion has to offer, at every level, from the novice to the pope himself, is faith. There's nothing there to check, and the simple fact that religions accept that there's nothing to check does not make religion superior to science, where there actually is observations to look at.

Quote:Again, with all of that said, people who believe in a god know what it means to believe in it – faith.  Not faith in scientists, but faith in the belief of an omnipotent god that rests upon the fact we don’t know all of the answers.

Not knowing the answers isn't a reason to believe something, that's an argument from ignorance.

Quote:Better put, what will it be: blind faith in others humans’ finite intellect, or blind faith in an omnipotent god?

The former, if I have to choose between two options: we can at least demonstrate that finite humans exist. Not so for your god.

Of course, I object to your phrasing of that as "blind faith," too: when I look around, I see the myriad ways that science has improved my life, and I also see the willingness that those finite men have to show their data. My "faith" can hardly be called blind when it's based on so many observations, can it?

Quote:Theism gives the tools (e.g. literature and teachings) and capability (e.g. faith, intellect (or lack of), human morals ect.) for everyone to independently be a part of what it means to believe in it.
Science creation simply doesn’t do it for most.  Trust scientists’ say-so is not what I wish to “worship”, if you will.

So don't rely on their say-so. Go and look at the data: it's literally right below the abstract on every single scientific report ever accepted by the mainstream community. You can even replicate that data yourself, if you so wish.

You can't do any of that for religion.

Quote:Sorry, if I offended any of you.  I'm just trying to say my thoughts.  If you want to criticize any of it go ahead.  Bless.

I find the presumptuous nature of many of your ideas about us offensive, yes. But I don't think you meant it that way, I just think your religion has taught you not to consider those boundaries to be important in your proselytizing; from top to bottom the teachings of christianity purport to know what's in the minds of atheists too, but it's a practice you simply must drop, if you want to have an honest and productive conversation with us.

... That is what you want, isn't it?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
#4
RE: What Does Being An Atheist Actually Entail? (Theism in mind)
(April 27, 2015 at 11:47 pm)gomlbrobro Wrote: “Unless one can genuinely believe that all of these secular scientific assertions make sense, it can’t be wise to invest their belief in it….”

In other words, unless one personally dives in to the study and proof of evolution and astrophysics, that person is essentially putting faith in another person’s beliefs and conclusions to be sound.  Similarly, that same person will refuse to believe in theistic teachings.  Why put faith in the biased assertions of scientists over the biased assertions of theism.  (I say theism because the teachings/representation of a religion is not always what that religion was originally founded upon).  Why so easily accept one, yet not genuinely search the answers for the other?

I don't go around deciding ad hoc which way to toss my belief. Science is a sensible method for expanding empirical understanding of the natural world. It doesn't matter if I have the expertise to understand every scientific discovery, nor do I expect too. But that doesn't mean I need to supplement my beliefs with magical thinking.

I start with the bias that the natural world is all encompassing. If deities were real, they'd be natural. 'Supernatural' is a nonsensical and unnecessary category. I believe in extraordinary things, but I don't see any of them as magical or separate in any way from everything else. There is no reason for me to look into magical theistic ideas as a viable alternative. It only seems that way to you because you start with the bias.
Reply
#5
RE: What Does Being An Atheist Actually Entail? (Theism in mind)
The old science requires faith gambit. Honestly, this has been debunked so many times, it's hardly worth getting into. You're essentially arguing for rejecting belief in anything someone doesn't understand completely and accepting a gigantic argument from ignorance instead. No matter which way you cut it, that's completely illogical.
Reply
#6
RE: What Does Being An Atheist Actually Entail? (Theism in mind)
(April 28, 2015 at 12:11 am)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:Better put, what will it be: blind faith in others humans’ finite intellect, or blind faith in an omnipotent god?

Now all you have to do is demonstrate that there is an omnipotent god.  Let me know when you can do that.

Meanwhile, I'll stick with the slow but steady advance of science.

Okay, Minimalist, understandable.  It seems equally justifiable for both cases when I say, "or blind faith in an omnipotent god".  This post was not to prove their was an omnipotent god, but rather make a point that there is a problem with this atheistic belief system.  If I did that even a bit, which you can still say no, then I did my job on this post.  

I will continue posting and will try to find some compelling evidence to share in the soon future.  It will most likely concern a spirit realm, which is the biggest reason why I am not an atheist.  Of course, because if you believe in spirits, this would obviously contradict the science creation, which implies the universe was strictly formed by physical laws.  Personally, I believe this (being a Christian) and I have done a lot of research on the topic.  I will try to write a well-developed essay of sorts on the matter.

Note: Yes I would still agree that there are a lot of problems with science creation, but for me, like you, it was nothing to convince me otherwise.  I don't believe theism is the better choice solely because of this.  Spirit realm is a different story entirely.  I'll start researching again.
My research will not be supported by biased christian sources.  On the contrary, it will not include heaven at all.


Well, that is, if you are actually open to the concept.  If you aren't, well there's no point of me writing it.  Are you at least open to information that would highly suggest my defense?
Reply
#7
RE: What Does Being An Atheist Actually Entail? (Theism in mind)
1. What is "science creation"?

2. What is the "spirit realm"?

3. Why is heaven your only caveat to not supporting "biased christian [sic] sources"?
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.
Reply
#8
RE: What Does Being An Atheist Actually Entail? (Theism in mind)
(April 27, 2015 at 11:47 pm)gomlbrobro Wrote: “Unless one can genuinely believe that all of these secular scientific assertions make sense, it can’t be wise to invest their belief in it….”

In other words, unless one personally dives in to the study and proof of evolution and astrophysics, that person is essentially putting faith in another person’s beliefs and conclusions to be sound.  Similarly, that same person will refuse to believe in theistic teachings.  Why put faith in the biased assertions of scientists over the biased assertions of theism.  (I say theism because the teachings/representation of a religion is not always what that religion was originally founded upon).  Why so easily accept one, yet not genuinely search the answers for the other?
Evidence. Logic. One doesn't have to be a scientist to understand how these work. One doesn't have to actually travel to Japan to have justification for the belief that it exists as an island in Asia, nor is one required to dissect a giraffe in order to believe what different textbooks say about its internal structure. It would be more incredible if there was a global conspiracy of zoologists who write books on animal bodies and secretly confer so as to make their claims in unison or feign disagreement where in fact there is no genuine knowledge. Again, what is the evidence and logic for theism? Short answer: There is none, whereas science can boast of a mountain of facts that accumulate daily (Yes, I know theists think they're awfully clever with their appeals to ignorance and credulity). Theism never has, and I dare say, probably never will have such credit to put to its name.
(April 27, 2015 at 11:47 pm)gomlbrobro Wrote:  It is certainly not because abstract science, by the means of proving creation, is easier to understand. The short answer is because the alternative belief (theism) would completely change the dynamic of your life and future-it is easier not to investigate the topic further.  Being open is the first and hardest step–requiring submitting to unaccountability, pride, and change.
Speak for yourself. I'm not an abject opportunist who seeks to base his life off the benefits that might be reaped from pleasing the neighbors, even if they were to know every thought and action that I'm inclined to pursue, and the same goes if it is the Sun, the Moon, or whatever abstract something you call a god.
(April 27, 2015 at 11:47 pm)gomlbrobro Wrote: The same could question could be posed upon theists, however.  Why not search for the science creation proof?  The crucial difference between the two instances is that every theist can and does completely understand their belief – it’s called faith.  The problem for most atheists is that they can’t and don’t fully understand why they believe it.  Top-notch scientists in the field of astrophysics, cosmology, and evolution – as flawed as it is – have a merit to be an atheist because they fully understand what it means to be.  Most others, on the other hand, are putting complete faith in to human scientists to justify their beliefs.  There’s a distinct and vital difference between the founders of a belief, and the followers.  
Again, with all of that said, people who believe in a god know what it means to believe in it – faith.  Not faith in scientists, but faith in the belief of an omnipotent god that rests upon the fact we don’t know all of the answers.  
Better put, what will it be: blind faith in others humans’ finite intellect, or blind faith in an omnipotent god?  Theism gives the tools (e.g. literature and teachings) and capability (e.g. faith, intellect (or lack of), human morals ect.) for everyone to independently be a part of what it means to believe in it.
Science creation simply doesn’t do it for most.  Trusting scientists’ say-so is not what I wish to “worship”, if you will.


Sorry if I offended any of you.  I'm just trying to say my thoughts.  If you want to criticize any of it go ahead.  God Bless.
The only offensive aspect of your post is the equivocation of your use of the word "faith." No one would say informed opinion is bad, if that's what you want to call faith. But theism is not that anymore than belief in the healing power of holy water is.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply
#9
RE: What Does Being An Atheist Actually Entail? (Theism in mind)
(April 27, 2015 at 11:47 pm)gomlbrobro Wrote: “Unless one can genuinely believe that all of these secular scientific assertions make sense, it can’t be wise to invest their belief in it….”
I don't know that it's wise, but it's polite, moral, and acedemic to attribute quotations, to the person who said them. . .

That said, atheisim is not an investment in scientific assertions, it is a lack of belief in god, no more, no less.   It requires no investment of any kind. 



Quote:In other words, unless one personally dives in to the study and proof of evolution and astrophysics, that person is essentially putting faith in another person’s beliefs and conclusions to be sound.  Similarly, that same person will refuse to believe in theistic teachings.  Why put faith in the biased assertions of scientists over the biased assertions of theism.  (I say theism because the teachings/representation of a religion is not always what that religion was originally founded upon).  Why so easily accept one, yet not genuinely search the answers for the other?  It is certainly not because abstract science, by the means of proving creation, is easier to understand. The short answer is because the alternative belief (theism) would completely change the dynamic of your life and future-it is easier not to investigate the topic further.  Being open is the first and hardest step–requiring submitting to unaccountability, pride, and change.


The same could question could be posed upon theists, however.  Why not search for the science creation proof?  The crucial difference between the two instances is that every theist can and does completely understand their belief – it’s called faith.
 
No.  I was an atheist before I knew anything about evolution or astrophysics and there were atheists long before either discipline was invented.  But there is a fundamental difference between scientific knowledge and religionious knowledge.  Religion really is a matter of faith.  In the case of science, the proof must be there, or it's not science.  Because science is based on other scientists being able to replicate results, false hypothesis, will fall.  Science is also doing something you don't even consider, admitting we might not know.  I don't know many, many things.  How life or the universe began are just two of them.  But knowledge of those things is not necessary to living well.  If it were necessary, I don't see that believing really hard would help.

Understanding faith and belief completely would end faith and belief.  Faith and belief are simply pretending you know really, really hard.

Quote:The problem for most atheists is that they can’t and don’t fully understand why they believe it.
 
Believe what?  Atheism doesn't require belief.  It's simply an acknowledgment of a lack of belief in god.  Given the lack of evidence of god, that's a no brainier.  No faith required.  I know perfectly well  why I don't believe: no evidence.

I'm assuming you are Christian.  Why aren't you Muslim?  Why aren't you Hindu?  Why aren't you Mormon?  Why don't you believe in Zeus, or unicorns, or Nessy?  Lack of evidence, that's why.  Show me evidence of your god, and we'll talk.



Quote:Top-notch scientists in the field of astrophysics, cosmology, and evolution – as flawed as it is – have a merit to be an atheist because they fully understand what it means to be.  Most others, on the other hand, are putting complete faith in to human scientists to justify their beliefs.  There’s a distinct and vital difference between the founders of a belief, and the followers.  
Again, with all of that said, people who believe in a god know what it means to believe in it – faith.  Not faith in scientists, but faith in the belief of an omnipotent god that rests upon the fact we don’t know all of the answers.  

Scientists may understand their area of expertise in the way you suggest, but not all science.  What we put our "faith" in as you call it, is results.  Your cell phone, internet connection, light switch, vaccine, printing press, printer, microwave, TV, CD player, etc. work, because of knowledge produced by science.  I don't need faith, I just need verification.  The light switch works, prayer not so much.

Also we put our faith in a process of adversarial proof.  Science must be verified by replication.

Quote:Better put, what will it be: blind faith in others humans’ finite intellect, or blind faith in an omnipotent god?  Theism gives the tools (e.g. literature and teachings) and capability (e.g. faith, intellect (or lack of), human morals ect.) for everyone to independently be a part of what it means to believe in it.
Science creation simply doesn’t do it for most.  Trusting scientists’ say-so is not what I wish to “worship”, if you will.

Actually, you too trust science every time you get in a car, cross a bridge, take an elevator, climb to the second story, have an operation, take a prescribed drug, visit the doctor, use the net, use your computer, turn on the light switch, use your cell phone, turn on the AC, eat heavily breed meat (all domestic meat), drive a car, fly, worry about nuclear bombs, rely on nuclear power, and on and on and on.   But it isn't blind faith, it's experience. 

Quote:Sorry if I offended any of you.  I'm just trying to say my thoughts.  If you want to criticize any of it go ahead.  God Bless.

No, I don't think you are sorry, you came to offend.  What you did is amuse me with a false dichotomy: god or science.  There are many theist scientists.   But, I know of no one who operates without the fruits of science.  The fruits of religion are prejudice, ignorance, and war---and to be fair fellowship.  But religion is not necessary for fellowship.   Science is necessary for your current state of well being.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god.  If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Reply
#10
RE: What Does Being An Atheist Actually Entail? (Theism in mind)
(April 28, 2015 at 12:21 am)Esquilax Wrote:
(April 27, 2015 at 11:47 pm)gomlbrobro Wrote: In other words, unless one personally dives in to the study and proof of evolution and astrophysics, that person is essentially putting faith in another person’s beliefs and conclusions to be sound.

Am I putting faith in an auto mechanic when I take my car in to be repaired? Am I putting my faith in a surgeon when I have an operation?

I guess you could say so, but the crucial difference is that these are informed faith, backed up by the track record of the people involved, and the evidence of their efficacy. It's trust, certainly not the capital F Faith that religion requires, and the same is true of evolution and astrophysics, both of which come courtesy of scientists who always show their working and cite their sources when making claims. You're not the first theist to conflate reasonable trust based on evidence with faith in the completely unevidenced, but you're no more right than any of the others.



Quote:  Similarly, that same person will refuse to believe in theistic teachings.  Why put faith in the biased assertions of scientists over the biased assertions of theism.

Because the people who assert the presence of bias in science are never able to show evidence of this, though they're readily able to show evidence of how little they understand science. Meanwhile, the scientists just kinda put their observations and hypotheses out there for everyone to test, and have a easily researchable track record of retracting those same hypotheses when they're proven to be wrong.

That's probably why.



Quote:Why so easily accept one, yet not genuinely search the answers for the other?

Why are you assuming a lack of genuine searching from us? Do you know any of us? No? Then I guess this is just an assumption of convenience because it's easier to impugn our characters than it is to consider the possibility that we searched just as genuinely as you did and found nothing. If it can happen to us it could happen to you, right? Scary!

Take my wife, for example: lifelong christian until shortly before I met her. You can attempt to question her credentials but it would be foolish to: this is a woman who ended up in intensive care, on death's door, because she refused life saving medical treatment in favor of praying, her knowledge that the same god you believe in would save her preventing her from taking the proven treatment science was offering. Ultimately the god did nothing and let her waste away and almost die, but the scientific treatment had her bouncing back, and further scientific treatments since have allowed her to almost fully recover from her illness, at this point. She's an atheist now, but don't you dare accuse her of not genuinely searching, and the fact that she has falsifies your claim right there.

And her recovery, incidentally, is a perfect show of why it's acceptable to put your trust in science, and not in religion; one works, the other just promises that it does.



Quote:  It is certainly not because evolution and cosmetology, by the means of proving creation, is easier to understand.

Easy to understand does not equal true. This is something you must come to terms with, if you wish to think rationally.



Quote:The short answer is because the alternative belief (theism) would completely change the dynamic of your life and future-it is easier not to investigate the topic further.  Being open is the first and hardest step–requiring submitting to unaccountability, pride, and change.

Why do you think it is acceptable to presume things about people you've never met in order to impugn their character? Why do you think this is a productive way to begin a conversation about beliefs, by dictating ours to us like this? Wouldn't you think it would be horribly rude and arrogant of us to do the same to you?

'Cause where I'm from, we call that a strawman argument, kid.



Quote:The same could question could be posed upon theists, however.  Why not search for the science creation proof?  The crucial difference between the two instances is that every theist can and does completely understand their belief – it’s called faith.  The problem for most atheists is that they can’t and don’t fully understand why they believe it.  Top-notch scientists in the field of astrophysics, cosmetology, and evolution – as flawed as it is – have a merit to be an atheist because they fully understand what it means to be.  Most others, on the other hand, are putting complete faith in to human scientists to justify their beliefs.  There’s a distinct and vital difference between the founders of a belief, and the followers. 

The difference, of course, is that scientists have a track record of demonstrable results- the world you live in is influenced by the works of science in so many ways it'd be impossible to list them all- and they present all of their data as a matter of routine. The difference, good sir, is that it's actually possible to learn the details of evolution and cosmology, whereas all religion has to offer, at every level, from the novice to the pope himself, is faith. There's nothing there to check, and the simple fact that religions accept that there's nothing to check does not make religion superior to science, where there actually is observations to look at.



Quote:Again, with all of that said, people who believe in a god know what it means to believe in it – faith.  Not faith in scientists, but faith in the belief of an omnipotent god that rests upon the fact we don’t know all of the answers.

Not knowing the answers isn't a reason to believe something, that's an argument from ignorance.



Quote:Better put, what will it be: blind faith in others humans’ finite intellect, or blind faith in an omnipotent god?

The former, if I have to choose between two options: we can at least demonstrate that finite humans exist. Not so for your god.

Of course, I object to your phrasing of that as "blind faith," too: when I look around, I see the myriad ways that science has improved my life, and I also see the willingness that those finite men have to show their data. My "faith" can hardly be called blind when it's based on so many observations, can it?



Quote:Theism gives the tools (e.g. literature and teachings) and capability (e.g. faith, intellect (or lack of), human morals ect.) for everyone to independently be a part of what it means to believe in it.
Science creation simply doesn’t do it for most.  Trust scientists’ say-so is not what I wish to “worship”, if you will.

So don't rely on their say-so. Go and look at the data: it's literally right below the abstract on every single scientific report ever accepted by the mainstream community. You can even replicate that data yourself, if you so wish.

You can't do any of that for religion.



Quote:Sorry, if I offended any of you.  I'm just trying to say my thoughts.  If you want to criticize any of it go ahead.  Bless.

I find the presumptuous nature of many of your ideas about us offensive, yes. But I don't think you meant it that way, I just think your religion has taught you not to consider those boundaries to be important in your proselytizing; from top to bottom the teachings of christianity purport to know what's in the minds of atheists too, but it's a practice you simply must drop, if you want to have an honest and productive conversation with us.

... That is what you want, isn't it?

Esquilax, I agree with all of your reasoning and all of what you said is justified. Obviously you are a better debater and writer than me, but w/e. Wink

I do contest this statement, however:
"Meanwhile, the scientists just kinda put their observations and hypotheses out there for everyone to test, and have a easily researchable track record of retracting those same hypotheses when they're proven to be wrong."

In my opinion, this only applies to disciplines that can be done again and again and you will get roughly, or always the same results every time.  I agree that a recorded track record would be plausible here.
However, it gets fuzzy when they try to tackle on as something as illustrating how the universe could be formed. The problem with astrophysics is that it is highly abstract and simply built upon mathematical models scientists have created and have to jump through hoops (like projecting constant variables) to make it even be a well-developed theory.  Theories such as these, which are needed to give support for the creation of the universe, certainly cannot be preformed in the first place.  There's no way for any person to confirm this, not even the scientists.  Scientists of this field might say that the mathematics make sense, but only in itself... This is the only way they form their credibility - by other scientists, not a shown track record.
On top of that, these mathematical model can't be actually disproven without any superior, empirical evidence that would suggest otherwise.  Sure there might be more scientists who come up with another model of how it COULD happen, but it's still a theory and therefore doesn't disprove the preexisting ones.  
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Something that has been on my mind dyresand 24 3395 December 4, 2015 at 10:22 pm
Last Post: Reforged
  Atheism/Theism and Left/Right Brain? bambi_swag 11 4489 October 4, 2015 at 7:24 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Whoops....Never Mind. Minimalist 1 967 October 17, 2013 at 3:36 pm
Last Post: Doubting Thomas
  Mind reading is here people! downbeatplumb 3 1290 February 2, 2012 at 3:58 pm
Last Post: Doubting Thomas



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)